News -> INDReporter MON, OCT 18 10:47AM by Walter Pierce

Commish emails portend panel’s direction

A series of electronic messages circulated among members of the Lafayette Charter Commission offer insight into where the panel’s deliberations may lead in the coming months. Discussion at the Oct. 11 meeting centered on Lafayette’s need to obtain self-determination through its own council. The email sequence that followed that meeting suggests that at least two commissioners including the panel’s chairman intend to direct conversation toward that discussion.

The series begins with an Oct. 12 message from commission Chairman George Lewis, who provides as an attachment to his message a chart delineating six options for the council to consider in making its recommendation to voters:

1. Maintain the current form of consolidated government
2. Maintain the current form of government but establish a separate commission to operate Lafayette Utilities System, a city-owned enterprise
3. Adopt the consolidated form of government in place in Duval County, Fla., which would give Lafayette a city council but maintain the mayor-president form of executive oversight currently in use by LCG
4. Give Lafayette a city council and the parish a parish council; keep operations of the two consolidated and have a mayor-president
5. Separte city and parish councils with a mayor for Lafayette and a parish president; maintain consolidated operations
6. Total deconsolidation

In Commissioner Bruce Conque’s Oct. 11 presentation, a proposal was made that Lafayette Parish adopt a modified version of Duval County, with Lafayette having a separate city council and mayor and breaking up the parish into seven “services districts” (municipal boundaries) comprising the six municipalities — Broussard, Carencro, Duson, Lafayette, Scott and Youngsville — and unincorporated Lafayette Parish.

Lewis’ message the following day acknowledges Conque’s call for Lafayette having its own council, but Lewis takes exception with some of Conque’s points:
It seems that a majority of the commission feels that the City of Lafayette should have its own government. ...As I noted last night, I think that the simplest and easiest solution to this issue is Column Number 4 where the only change in the governance structure is to establish a separate 5 member City council but keep one Mayor/President position and one CAO and continue the consolidation of services. That would solve the issue of the LPUA — it would be governed by the City Council, all of whom would be residents of the City of Lafayette...

Lewis also proposes that the mayor-president of Lafayette Parish, who would have veto authority over the votes of the Lafayette City Council, could be a resident of anywhere in the parish, as is currently the case. Lewis also warns against Conque’s use of the term “services districts,” arguing that the commission needs “to keep our proposal as simple as possible without confusing the issues.”

The commissioner also proposes simplifying the description of duties of city and parish departments to give the administration more flexibility, as well as convening a charter commission every 10 years to review the charter for possible updates/changes.

On Oct. 13, in reply, Conque acknowledges that his model is encumbered by the use of services districts, but argues that Lafayette needs not only its own council, but its own mayor as well, saying to do otherwise “ignores a hard learned political history lesson.”

You acknowledge that the Mayor/President would be a resident of the Parish who might be a resident of Lafayette, or a resident of Youngsville, or someone from the unincorporated area of the Parish. And to the detriment of the City of Lafayette that is what occurred in the first eight years of LCG.

Parish President Walter Comeaux was not a City of Lafayette resident and, thus, had no vested interest in our development. In fact, he gave away the one “carrot” for City growth by providing wholesale water to most of the Parish. The result was that the City of Lafayette actually decreased in its percentage of Parish population from 66% to 54% under LCG.

...The City of Lafayette has sacrificed its sovereignty for the greater good of the whole under Lafayette Consolidated Government. Fellow Commissioners, let’s continue our effort to treat the City of Lafayette fairly and equally under whatever structure of government which we may recommend.

However, not all of Conque’s fellow commissioners were swayed by his entreaty. In a message the next day to the commission, Commissioner Don Bacque, a city of Lafayette resident, tells members of the panel he remains skeptical of the direction the commission is headed:

The only string that binds all of us together is that we are residents of Lafayette Parish. In my mind, anything that we suggest to the citizens should respond to this question: “is it better for the parish”; not as we are hearing: “is it better for the city?” I question the logic of the often heard allegation that a council member elected from the unincorporated area cannot fairly represent the interests of city residents. ... I suggest that a council member, elected by only city residents, may be just as truculent, and our history of administration vs. council has many instances of that happening.

... I think that Bruce’s concept, less the additional elected members, is a viable one. I am still not convinced that an additional layer of governance, with its won additional bureaucracy, is the anwer, but I am willing to listen.

The Lafayette Charter Commission meets at 5:30 p.m. Monday in the City-Parish Council auditorium. The meeting is open to the public and also airs on AOC.


Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (5)add
...
written by Norma Desmond , October 18, 2010 - 05:58 pm
I vote we consolidated the entire parish including the small towns. Or, succeed from Louisiana.
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 18, 2010 - 07:07 pm
Man, if the other towns would go for it, I think total consolidation is definitely the way to go. One tax base, one tax rate for everybody whether you live in town or the parish, one council and one administration. do away with lafayette police and have just one big sheriff's department, too.
...
written by Unempirical Observer , October 18, 2010 - 08:11 pm
I agree with Ragin_Cajun on this one. Let's consolidate fully. I would offer though that we could have some form of volunteer representative community councils for each of the smaller towns, and even sectors of Lafayette the City, and unincorporated areas of the Parish, so as to provide that level of localized direction of planning, services, direction of resources, accountability and responsiveness that we know we all want.
This happened in Bolivia after the existing power structure collapsed, and it has worked I am told with some success.

Generally I find most people want a balance in one basket of decentralized governance along with a strong and fair regulator to referee the ball-field, ensuring all are playing by the rules and enforcing regulations, like law and order, pollution and a certain level of planning, much as even the pentagon does, to anticipate needs in our economy and security. These fields really all go together.

Also, we could and should still explore the option of hiring a "non-partisan" manager of government rather than worrying about where the elected leader comes from. The manager could be hired from out of town/(parish) entirely.
Still, if any cities are left with room to expand, and want to do so in conflict with each other, and the planning for orderly expansion of infrastructure is left lacking, then conflicts within the government and the governments (or councils in this instance) will result, and it's going to be difficult for the council's manager or the elected president to referree these disputes much less be a neutral party.

Does the unincorporated area have a greater interest in preserving it's tax base and block the City of Lafayette from expanding, and if that situation arises, how does the City-Parish Mayor-President stand on the issue? It's more cut and dry if it's Parish and City versus small town, but obviously this all gets murky pretty fast.

Let's just abolish all the fiefdoms and unify the tax base and distribute it according to the need (as long as the needy aren't wasteful ruralized-suburbanites hogging all that concrete)
No more bedroom communities. They lack commercial and industrial tax base, and they couldn't pay for their own residential infrastructure needs anyway.
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 18, 2010 - 10:02 pm
Observer --

" I find most people want a balance in one basket of decentralized governance along with a strong and fair regulator to referee the ball-field, ensuring all are playing by the rules and enforcing regulations, like law and order, pollution"

That's it!! That's right what government should be, and not one damn thing more. I don't know about the "planning" part, but I'm right there with everything else. If government would just enforce the laws, strictly and fairly, equally.....enforce some very bare set of regulations.....and stay out of everything else, we'd all be MUCH richer, freer, and happier.


...
written by Unempirical Observer , October 19, 2010 - 10:55 pm
Cajun, I bet we differ on the level of and role of regulations. How bare is too much to bear?
Basically on planning, I don't think the market has unfettered mastery and wisdom to meet and satisfy all needs in society. Some needs just aren't economic or profitable.
Some situations develop into a status-quo that doesn't necessarily make the best sense, but, we keep doing what we've always done until we're told not to, or when we come together to address problems, such as: resource use, poorly un-designed cities, pollution, no space for landfills, problems with homelessness and mental disease, alcoholism.

Some of those problems can be managed by non-profit charities and not-for-profit business concerns, funding can be raised privately, but probably needs a government backstop to ensure year-to-year stability in funding.

We obviously need a strong regulator in the financial arena, nationally, to keep the markets fair, and a willingness in the elected bodies to be independent of financially vested interests who would influence them, ensuring the regulator is weakened, allowing "too big to fail" to concentrate and rise.

Anyone that operates in the mom-and-pop world encounters the problems of competition at an unequal level.
We just turn our people into workers for faceless others rather than independent community proprietors and entrepreneurs.

I don't see how depopulating communities of their bourgeoisie does us any good.

Let's end this ramble for now. Bare bones doesn't work for me, and it's hard to miss what you have til it's gone. I think that's the situation we're all presented with.

Also, the US Government was created in a simpler time, with less globalization, to govern a country with 95% fewer people we now have. Expecting it to keep up with, be sufficient to the task of, and more closely representative of the electorate is a huge task. There's a lot of power sitting in 535 chairs, and especially, in 41 of those chairs.
41 out of 300+ Million.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it